The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

So, your pov is that of a child, not a parent. It's quite understandable, then, that you resent the idea of being misinformed.
But reflect. Would you really be a better person, or happier, or more successful, if all the adults in your life had told you the complete truth about everything?
Do you recall your passive listening attention span at age three or four? (the average for adults is 15 minutes) What was your vocabulary? Are you sure you would have been able to sit still for and comprehend the complete, accurate answers to all of your questions? In fact, can you now?

I wish people told me more. I fully believe I could have figured out Integrated Mathematics 111 myself if someone had introduced it to me at age 9. Instead of giving me toy cars to play with, I would have heavily preferred a dictionary of a foreign language at age six. I much still prefer the intellectual form of any item and resent my lack of growth where it was so clearly possible. I could know much more and be much more progressed if anyone had tried a damn to progress me. But either way, I try not to take the POV of anyone but that person which can see the full idea and scope of a system. I would not agree that I see, as your CA 15 year old would traditionally see, this system in its own fallible form which I am able to comprehend, but rather as it completely is, and better, as it definitely could be.

Yes, I still remember being four, it was not all that long ago. I took interest in only artistic values then, and still attempted to wrap my mind around basic quantitative form. I should be educated, for hell's sake. I can do not but resent the people who should have educated me when it was available. Now I am in my own hands for education, hands not fully grown, not fully stable, unable to carry myself to the destinations at which I should already reside.

Do you mean your parents forbade you to read textbooks and dictionaries? Kept no books in the house? Denied you a library card?
If that is the case, they probably didn't have the knowledge you craved and could only have given you incorrect information that you would later have to waste time unlearning, so you're lucky they didn't. Odds are, they also couldn't afford a private school for gifted children.
Nor is it reasonable to expect a Grade 3 public school teacher to instruct all of her students in high-school or college math, nor to double his working time by instructing the other students in the regular curriculum plus tutor one at a level he hasn't been trained to teach.

Fortunately, you still have some time. Take those unsteady immature little hands and grasp your own education.
So what if the Nobel has to wait until you're 25 - worse things could happen.

You haven’t offered any support for the claim I initially took issue with (that religion is junk) or addressed the point I offered as a potential hurdle in your doing so. Instead, you’ve merely offered two new ambiguous claims.

By “brainwash(ing)” it’s unclear whether you mean cultivating religious beliefs in particular or cultivating moral beliefs in general; either way, you’ve introduced a new claim — that one of these is tantamount to brainwashing — which now demands additional support. Furthermore, your comment about ends justifying means seems to imply that a parent need not have recourse to, nor the child need be inculcated with, beliefs of this order (whether religious or not is, again, unclear): another claim, in need of yet more justification, and which raises the question whether you think this to be the case because (1) you think there is a way to provide moral instruction to a child without instilling moral beliefs in him or (2) you think moral instruction to be avoidable altogether when raising a child.

Loaded language and exclamation points do not an argument make. Who’s the sophist here? Try again.

And you think the putative contradiction of Aristotle's philosophy imaging of God as the perfection of idea is a problem when Aristotle was not cited in the present discussion? That's not a straw man - man, that's not even a straw!

I was thinking it was probably a mistake to add those last few words to that sentence.

However, I was thinking of the scientific method as commonly defined, i.e., "procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

One may take a similarly rigorous approach to examining subjective experience, that is what I meant. I realize it can be handicapped by observer bias but this is true in physical science too - say quantum mechanics.

However, I was thinking of the scientific method as commonly defined, i.e., "procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses."

One may take a similarly rigorous approach to examining subjective experience, that is what I meant. I realize it can be handicapped by observer bias but this is true in physical science too - say quantum mechanics.

the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses
What's the procedure for applying this to subjective experience? You'll run into problems with the peer review.
"Say quantum meachanics" (say any other scientific hypothesis?) Do you mean : "... that by the very act of watching, the observer affects the observed reality. ... When a quantum "observer" is watching Quantum mechanics states that particles can also behave as waves."
That is not a bias; that is a phenomenon.
Any endeavour can be compromised and its achievement diminished by bias, but no amount of bias can bring a subjective notion into existence; a thing that has never been observed behaves in no way at all.

Yes. So far, it has given many - even some plausible - explanations for the subjective experiences that may be collectively interpreted as "religious", but non at all regarding an external, or observable and testable, supernatural entity/event/phenomenon.
Which, of course, may put this research in the area of mental aberration and malfunction. But even if this particular cluster of mental states is not necessarily symptomatic of illness, psychological research is not observing the experiences, but only the subject experiencing them; it is not a study of
the supernatural, but of the human mind.
Incidentally, there are those who question including psychology among the sciences. I'm not one of those: it's closely enough to neurology as to be scientifically useful.
But it will never give you a scientific basis for deities.

[Any endeavour can be compromised and its achievement diminished by bias]

That's to what I was referring....

Ah, but not the other half: that bias can never stretch a science so far as to include imaginary beings.

This is irrelevant anyway: if you tell a child gobbledygook that you know is gobbledygook, it's story-telling, or embellishment or lying;
if you tell it gobbledygook you yourself believe, it's honest indoctrination.

Religion does not necessarily involve belief in a Diety, e.g., Buddhism does not.

We can study the mindset and psychological traits of those who have had so-called mystical experiences, the effects of practicing various meditation, etc. There is a neuroscientist and Zen meditation practitioner named James Austin who has done the latter and written a few books on the subject.

"We do not see things as they are; we see things as we are." - Anaïs Nin

Religion does not necessarily involve belief in a Diety, e.g., Buddhism does not.

We can study the mindset and psychological traits of those who have had so-called mystical experiences, the effects of practicing various meditation, etc. There is a neuroscientist and Zen meditation practitioner named James Austin who has done the latter and written a few books on the subject.

Yes, people do that. You can do that. How does it relate to the lies you tell to children?